System Advancements at the Monastery

“Every man is proud of what he does well; and no man is proud of what he does not do well. With the former, his heart is in his work; and he will do twice as much of it with less fatigue. The latter performs a little imperfectly, looks at it in disgust, turns from it, and imagines himself exceedingly tired. The little he has done, comes to nothing, for want of finishing.”
– Abraham Lincoln

When Edwin M. Stanton first saw Abraham Lincoln, he asked, “Where did the long-armed baboon come from?” Stanton later described Lincoln as “A long, lank creature from Illinois, wearing a dirty linen duster for a coat and the back of which perspiration had splotched wide stains that resembled a map of the continent.” This was right before the McCormick-Manny case of 1855 where Lincoln was one of Manny’s lawyers. Stanton and Lincoln were suppose to be working as partners on the case. W. M. Dickerson, one of the Cincinnati lawyers, wrote, “Mr. Lincoln had prepared himself with the greatest care; his ambition was to speak in the case and measure words with the renowned lawyer from Baltimore. He came with the fond hope for making fame in a forensic contest with Reverdy Johnson. He was pushed aside, humiliated and mortified.”

After the trial, Lincoln told Ralph Emerson, a young lawyer who was present at the trial, “I am going home. I am going home to study law.” Emerson asked, “Mr. Lincoln, you stand at the head of the bar in Illinois now! What are you talking about?” Lincoln replied, “Ah, yes, I do occupy a good position there, and I think that I can get along with the way things are done there now. But these college-trained men, who have devoted their whole lives to study, are coming West, don’t you see? And they study their cases as we never do. They have got as far as Cincinnati now. They will soon be in Illinois.” Emerson stated Lincoln turned to him, his countenance suddenly assuming that look of strong determination which those who knew him best sometimes saw upon his face, and said, “I am going home to study law! I am as good as any of them, and when they get out to Illinois, I will be ready for them.’”

Later, when Lincoln was president and had to replace Simon Cameron, his first Secretary of War, he appointed Stanton. Doris Goodwin writes, “Lincoln recognized that the very qualities that had brought the hotheaded Stanton to treat him badly–his intensity, his bluntness, his determination to succeed–were precisely the qualities he needed in his War Secretary.”

“By the war’s end, few men were on such intimate terms with Lincoln as the Secretary of War. Few men could write the President such chatty, personal letters as those Stanton dispatched while Lincoln visited the Virginia front in 1865,” wrote Lincoln biographer Stephen B. Oates. John Hay, presidential aid, wrote to Stanton after Lincoln’s death, “Not everyone knows, as I do, how close you stood to our lost leader, how he loved you and trusted you, and how vain were all the efforts to shake that trust and confidence, not lightly given and never withdrawn.” When Lincoln died Stanton is reported to have uttered, “Now he belongs to the ages.”

I have worked a long time in IT, and have come across folks, like Stanton, who might not be considered the easiest people to work with. The Harvard Business Review has an article by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones titled, “Leading Clever People.” Goffee and Jones conducted over a 100 interviews with leaders at major organizations. They report the relationships effective leaders have with their “clever people” can be shaped by seven shared characteristics:

1. They know their worth—and they know you have to employ them if you want their tacit skills.
2. They are organizationally savvy and will seek the company context in which their interests are most generously funded.
3. They ignore corporate hierarchy; although intellectual status is important to them, you can’t lure them with promotions.
4. They expect instant access to top management, and if they don’t get it, they may think the organization doesn’t take their work seriously.
5. They are plugged into highly developed knowledge networks, which both increases their value and makes them more of a flight risk.
6. They have a low boredom threshold, so you have to keep them challenged and committed.
7. They won’t thank you—even when you’re leading them well.

The article goes on to state:

The trick is to act like a benevolent guardian: to grant them the respect and recognition they demand, protect them from organizational rules and politics, and give them room to pursue private efforts and even to fail. The payoff will be a flourishing crop of creative minds that will enrich your whole organization.

A good example is Google letting their employees spend one day a week on their own start-up ideas. I often thought it would be an interesting experiment for a company to allocate one afternoon a week for their employees to blog. They can keep it in house. The topic can be on anything related to the business of the company. This would provide the managers an amazing opportunity to review their employees blogs, get incredible insight, different points of views, and some very good ideas.

Dr. Carol Dweck, a professor of Psychology at Stanford University, is a recognized world leader in the study of personality. In her book, “Mindset: The New Psychology of Success,” Dr. Dweck provides additional insight into people’s mindsets when approaching challenges. She observes:

In my book I identify two mindsets that play important roles in people’s success. In one, the fixed mindset, people believe that their talents and abilities are fixed traits. They have a certain amount and that’s that; nothing can be done to change it. Many years of research have now shown that when people adopt the fixed mindset, it can limit their success. They become over-concerned with proving their talents and abilities, hiding deficiencies, and reacting defensively to mistakes or setbacks-because deficiencies and mistakes imply a (permanent) lack of talent or ability. People in this mindset will actually pass up important opportunities to learn and grow if there is a risk of unmasking weaknesses. This is not a recipe for success in business, as ultimately shown by the folks at Enron, who rarely admitted any mistakes. What is the alternative?

Dr. Dweck goes on to describe the growth mindset:

In the other mindset, the growth mindset, people believe that their talents and abilities can be developed through passion, education, and persistence. For them, it’s not about looking smart or grooming their image. It’s about a commitment to learning–taking informed risks and learning from the results, surrounding yourself with people who will challenge you to grow, looking frankly at your deficiencies and seeking to remedy them. Most great business leaders have had this mindset, because building and maintaining excellent organizations in the face of constant change requires it.

Dr. Moira Gunn has a fascinating discussion with Dr. Carol Dweck on the Tech Nation podcast.

Before understanding how one might lead intelligent and difficult people, it is important to understand a little about leadership. A presentation adapted from Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones, “Managing Authenticity: The Paradox of Great Leadership,” is available on online. The article appeared in Harvard Business Review, December 2005, pages 87-94.

Rob Goffee And Gareth Jones also did an interview on “What It Takes To Be An Authentic Leader.” Jones makes the point, “organizations might desire leaders but they structure themselves in ways that kill leadership. Far too many are machines for the destruction of leadership. They encourage either conformists or role players. Neither makes for effective leaders.” Goffee adds, “leadership should be seen as something we do with other people. Leadership must always be viewed as a relationship between the leader and the led.”

Goffee and Jones offer three fundamental axioms about leadership:

1. Leadership is situational. What is required of the leader will always be influenced by the situation. Think of Rudy Giulani in the wake of September 11 or Winston Churchill. In organizational life, hard edged, cost-cutting turnaround managers are often unable to offer leadership when there is a need to build.
2. Leadership is non-hierarchical. Reaching the top of an organization does not make you a leader. Hierarchy alone is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for the exercise of leadership.
3. Leadership is that leadership is relational. Put simply, you cannot be a leader without followers. Leadership is a relationship built actively by both parties. This web of relationships is fragile and requires constant re-creation.

Jerry Manas wrote a fantastic book, “Napoleon on Project Management” and followed it up with a great podcast and blog. No matter who you are, you have to work with people. If you do not have much time to read, being able to tap into information through podcasts provides a means of learning some great insight on how to work on teams and help move a project along. There are a few very interesting project management podcasts. Cornelius Fichtner is behind “The Project Management Podcast” and “The Project Management PrepCast.” Dina Henry Scott does the podcasts “Controlling Chaos.” Dina can also be found occasionally in the Technorama chat room. She is both an experienced PM and a geek at heart. Finally, Barry Flicker, founder of Basic Training, did an entertaining talk on IT Conversations.

If you want to get into the mind of software developers, Scott Rosenberg did an excellent job following two dozen programmers over three years on the software project Chandler. His book, “Dreaming in Code” gives great insight into the complex and flawed beings that develop code. He has a great discussion of why it is so hard to pull off a big project on deadline. Catch Scott’s interview on the Open Source Conversation Podcast for additional information on his book.

The people involved in IT are only one factor in the difficulties surrounding IT projects. Another factor is that IT projects have a significant technology factor. The technology is constantly changing and require considerable expertise. David Johnstone, Sid Huff, and Beverley Hope wrote a very interesting paper title, “IT Projects: Conflicts, Governance, and Systems Thinking.” They argue that modern IT projects can be “broad in scope, as organizations seek to integrate more and more of their information functions, engulfing a considerable range of stakeholders both within, and external to, the organization.” They go on to state, “This challenges an organization’s flexibility and capability to cope with endemic change.” Tackling the issue of dealing with increasing complexity in the realm of security is the CERT’s Podcast Series, where Christopher Alberts and Julia Allen discuss, “Assuring Mission Success in Complex Environments.” Christopher and Julia discuss the problems involved with security in a distributed environment where multiple layers of people exist. They point out that one way of keeping flexibility while handling a complex environment is through focusing on management of process. While this is important, it only part of the solution.

Dr. Karen Stephenson, corporate anthropologist and a leader in the growing field of social-network business consultants, adds a third element: social network. She did a fascinating talk on IT Conversations on this subject. Dr. Stephenson makes the point, “When you think about it, very little of the working knowledge necessary to make products or deliver services lies in the formal, procedural policies of a company. Real working knowledge lies in the relationships between employees.” She also points out that many companies confuse hierarchical structure with the social network. Dr. Stephenson says that a hierarchical tool such as an org chart reflects procedural, not social knowledge, and that the two are completely different. “If you’re interested in incremental change, use the hierarchy,” says Stephenson. “But if you want rapid, radical change, use the network.”

Dr. Stephenson has a book coming out soon titled, “Quantum Theory of Trust.” There is an interview over on the HypergeneMediaBlog. From the interview, Dr. Stephenson states:

They call economics the dismal science for a reason and that’s because the pie is only so big. So, not only do I want to hold on to my piece, I want take yours away from you because I get bigger.

So there’s this whole notion that I can benefit at your demise, which can lead to zero sum games that can be really nasty and lot of people out there, no matter what they say, behave that way.

The new economy person says the pie gets bigger - it’s not fixed. It gets bigger and there’s more pieces for everyone. So, if you have a new economy person in the same room with an old economy person, the new economy person is going to loose their shirt. Because they’re going to give it all away and the old economy person is going to run off and say, “Sucker!”

People come into a situation with very different mindsets. Many folks in the IT field are brilliant individuals. They are working in an every changing environment which operates at a fast and furious pace. The software project does carry with it added difficulties even without factoring in personalities. Still, the people are a major factor. Companies can promote folks for various reasons, but the organization chart may not reflect how the work is actual down. This is especially true in an agile environment where there is a whole social network operating within the company.

Studying great leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Napoleon, can provide considerable insight. Both men dealt with a wide range of people, with very different mindsets. Yet they were able to pull people together under a common cause. Still, leadership is relational, and understanding both the leader and the follower is essential. The IT environment does create its own set of problems. Whether you are a leader or a follower, understanding some of what goes into moving a project forward can help make you a better team member.